slushh

>Because our mind evolved as a tool for survival of our self which is to say as a tool for survival of that which may pass on the genes which create said mind.

Said mind is not only created by the genes.

Think about ActivityPub integration, e.g. Funkwhale.

Where do those notes appear?

It would be nice if Kagi Small Web would have an ActivityPub interface so that the most appreciated sites of a day could be added to a timeline on mastodon or lemmy.

>Returning Indian and Chinese engineers and scientists means nothing if there isn't tens of billions waiting for them in funding when they get home.

China has a huge trade surplus and they are starting to trade in the BRICS currency. Why shouldn't there be billions? Once the investments pay off, why shouldn't there be even billions more?

>150 years ago their lifestyle might have made sense, but less so today where they could get better jobs if they had a better education and they could also get support from society if needed.

Today, there are expats and mobile internet. Doesn't the world change? With automated production processes, workers won't be needed locally. Like many pensioners today, society could change and the majority could travel depending on seasons.

In other words, isn't the sedentary population missing out on receiving advice from hundreds of years of traveling? If the traveling children lack opportunities, shouldn't we find a way to offer those opportunities because sooner or later, many children will be traveling?

>Science is, by definition, based on observation and proving hypotheses through that observation.

Technically, hypotheses cannot be proven because it's possible that all measurements were outliers.

Why? From a cash flow perspective, the monthly insurance premiums should cover the expenses.

How does public knowledge centralize the control of the companies? Owners would still be in control and there still would be laws prohibiting collusion between companies.

Would it be worthwhile to create the insights?

E.g. if there were a global registry of credit dependencies and ownership, at least for system relevant companies, we should know what is going to happen.

But what is the worst that could happen? If companies fold, ownership will be transferred. As long as the companies are profitable, their business will continue.

What's the worst that can happen? It's all just numbers on papers or memory. When Evergrande folds, others will pick up the opportunity.

Why should the government and the non-investors pay for government agencies that enforce regulations? If investors cannot handle due diligence, let them pay private agencies to secure their investments.

Note taking apps can make us smarter when note taking apps allow people to cooperate.

It can already happen on Twitter that people complete each other's thoughts but the Twitter timeline is not the medium to publish half-finished thoughts that could tarnish one's reputation.

Still, there is some joined thinking. HN shows that it's fun to pool notes on poplar topics. The difficulty lies in managing the attention on notes. Popularity voting doesn't work to navigate note collections.

The headline is about our smartness, but it doesn't mean us as a group. There is no joined thinking in his note-taking apps.

He is right when he talks about his isolated thinking:

>But the original promise of Roam — that it would improve my thinking by helping me to build a knowledge base and discover new ideas — fizzled completely

Where should new ideas arise in old notes when nobody sees them? Old notes just remind us that something is important. Revisiting them later, with new connections from new memories, it's possible to have new insights.

There is an easier way to access new memories: When notes are published, other brains, with many more, and different memories, can find solutions or advancements.

Historically, scientists only publish polished results, apart from exceptions like Hilbert's problems. Even those were remarkable problems. Who would dare to publish their minor nuisances or shallow observations (unless they come with a nice picture)?

The author hopes that AI can find answers. Why should we wait for AI when there are already intelligent humans? The problem lies in managing access to our thoughts. We don't want to allow everybody to see each of our notes.

>One interpretation of these events is that the software failed: that journaling and souped-up links simply don’t have the power some of us once hoped they did.

>In short: it is probably a mistake, in the end, to ask software to improve our thinking.

Software could improve our joined thinking. We need an acceptable format to publish our notes.

If they have many university graduates and lack cheap labour, why don't they let those graduates build robots or organize the outsourcing of the labour into countries with cheap labour?

How can there be a surplus of educated people who are unable to organize something profitable?

Won't AI change the energy market?

Once GPU production is fully ramped up, I would expect AI to become energy bound. Can we install enough renewable energy and nuclear power plants to fulfill the demand to the point that energy will be ridiculously cheap?

Does the page take over scrolling? Not a good sign for somebody who wants to take control over our climate.

*edit: The downvotes are fair for the level of snark. Still, as I cannot judge the validity of the approach, shouldn't I be skeptical when there is an inclination to change more than necessary?

At least for me, the page keeps scrolling for a short moment, unlike other pages like HN. It's tasteful, but unnecessary.